Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Nemesisghost writes "According to emails obtained via a Freedom of Information request, the U.S. Copyright Czar played an important role in brokering the deals between ISPs and copyright holders to punish subscribers whose IP addresses participated in copyright infringement. From the article: 'The records show the government clearly had a voice in the closed-door negotiations, though it was not a signatory to the historic accord, which isn’t an actual government policy. ... [T]he communications show that a wide range of officials — from Vice President Joe Biden’s deputy chief of staff Alan Hoffman, the Justice Department’s criminal chief Lanny Breuer to copyright czar Victoria Espinel — were in the loop well ahead of the accord’s unveiling. "These kind of backroom voluntary deals are quite scary, particularly because they are not subject to judicial review. I wanted to find out what role the White House has played in the negotiation, but unfortunately, the OMB (Office of Management and Budget) withheld key documents that would shed further light on it," Soghoian said when asked why he sought the documents.'"

Well, typically once in office, "Change you can believe in" quickly becomes "Dollars you can believe in". The other way of looking at it is that those in Washington DC are just following the Golden Rule: Whoever has the gold makes the rules.

There's a tendency for people who visit slashdot to oversimplify and equate Democrat=good and Republican=evil. The truth is much more complex. In particular, The movie, TV, and record industry has always been squarely behind Democrats [opensecrets.org], and the publishing industry shifted that way [opensecrets.org] during the Bush years (scroll down to the Party Split graphs).

This isn't a Democrat administration doing something with a copyright issue which you'd never expect, something you'd only expect from a Republican administration. It's a Democrat administration doing exactly what you'd expect it to do with a copyright issue. If you voted for Obama expecting him to side with the people instead of copyright holders, you need to do a better job researching political contributions next time. We have wonderful tools now which make it dirt simple compared to 15 years ago when we had to have it spoon-fed to us by the media, and you're remiss not to take advantage of them.

Personally I think it was the right choice - banking and finance reform was more important. But I knew it would mean copyright would shift the "wrong" way (in favor of content producers).

But I knew it would mean copyright would shift the "wrong" way (in favor of content producers).

Yes, that was my fear as well. Once this is in place, I would expect the media companies and their front organizations to stop bitching about online infringement and to stop suing people. But they won't: that's too big a moneymaker in its own right, and they like being able to make threats and intimidate people. They had also better start show record profits, since all those thousands of billions of dollars in lost sales will now suddenly start appearing in their bank accounts.

It's worse than that. Which industries are most interested in Copyright issues? The media? That's great, now who gets to decide which stores are going to get full blown 24 hours news coverage, and which are going to slip under the radar? This is why copyright reform is doomed, politicians need the media, and the media companies have only a few simple demands for them, guess what they are.

With newspapers dying out, it seems the only hope for independent journalism is the internet, but good luck getti

That's why the Wikileaks cables were so important; they showed us that the US embassies around the world spend 75% of their energy in brokering for US big corp, instead of representing the people that pay their salaries.

And people wonder why we are currently protesting in the streets over corporate greed and its manipulation of our nation's ideals, while steadfastly refusing to admit to ourselves that our man Obama is nothing more than a puppet perpetuating the very things we think are wrong in the system, or that his administration is just as bad as the one which went before. So we have a plan to Change things by holding signs which speak out against the actions of Obama's principal campaign donors, and getting the MM to show us at 5 and 11, in the Hope that maybe just maybe he will finally do those things he promised us he would do, but until now has just lied about [youtube.com]. Think it will work?

That's a good point. The Egyptians got what they wanted, and where did it put them? One has to wonder if they actually had a plan before going to the streets. Now, before someone tries to start a flamewar, I do really really admire their courage for standing up to their government. However I think that they should have had a better plan for what to do after the fact.

And people wonder why we are currently protesting in the streets over corporate greed and its manipulation of our nation's ideals, while steadfastly refusing to admit to ourselves that our man Obama is nothing more than a puppet perpetuating the very things we think are wrong in the system, or that his administration is just as bad as the one which went before. So we have a plan to Change things by holding signs which speak out against the actions of Obama's principal campaign donors, and getting the MM to show us at 5 and 11, in the Hope that maybe just maybe he will finally do those things he promised us he would do, but until now has just lied about [youtube.com]. Think it will work?

Congratulations for the perfect definition of the Liberal disease of Cognitive Dissonance.

Because cognitive dissonance is only found among liberals (which, I suspect, is everyone you disagree with)? Right..... As long as conservatives continue to put out this kind of moronic and juvenile nonsense, I'll keep voting for the at least well-intended evil.

and the message being spread "officially" is anything but what many think it is. Go read their home page and you will see demands that government do this, that, and that, to all sorts of parties. Yet you see no demands to get government off the backs of people - all they want is it on the backs of people they don't like.

I am all for people demonstrating their displeasure at the ballot box, we have a working democracy (republic) because we respect the system. It certainly needs an over haul in parts but not

Excuse my language, but this is way messed up. When are we going to enact legislation that disallows this kind of crap while in office, and prevents officials from going from their current position to a lobbying position so quickly? The corruption is becoming so blatant that it makes me want to punch every congress-critter and official I see in the face.

You're assuming that "we" can enact legislation. "We" cannot. We can only elect representatives that "we" hope will represent our interests.

But that's not the way it works anymore. Those guys that make legislation only seem to represent big corporate interests, because that's who's funding their re-election campaigns. Then they use that money to make TV commercials that lie to us, telling us to vote for him so he can represent us. Then, when we stupidly elect him, he goes and screws us, and enacts legislation for the interests that really got him re-elected, which is big money.

So "we" really have no voice in government at all. "We" cannot enact legislation, "we" are only subjects to the king and queen -- i.e. big companies.

The problem is that the average senatorial campaign costs around 7 million USD (I can dig up the citation if needed). Most people are living paycheck to paycheck, I consider myself luckier than most and I couldn't even drop the $1800 needed to start the paperwork. At some point somebody will try to crowdsource an election, that's about the only hope I have.

Money's not the only way to get on the ballot; at least, not in my district (I don't know the exact figure at the moment, but I think it only takes 3000 signatures to be placed on the ballot here). As a matter of fact, I intend to run against our incumbent with a campaign budget of approximately Zero; I plan on using public channels, such as NPR and the internet, to publicize my efforts.

I just won't be able to run any smear ads, which I have no intention of doing anyway. The way I see it, candidates shoul

I wish I could find the document I printed out. It was a year ago when I was researching this, a declaration to run for partisan office for the state of Nevada not as a member of a major party ended up being just over $1,800. I feel like a bit of a tool for not being able to find the PDF and/or relocating the data online. It could have been the peyote as well.

1. The government is way over-invested in protecting copyrights. They have a role to play, but it should be limited to providing the venue for litigation and enforcement of rulings. I don't want to pay copyright-holder's cost-of-doing-business unless I've actually purchased their products - not with my tax dollars.2. The ISPs previously had no involvement whatever in the copyright issue. That's how it should have stayed. I don't want to pay the copyright holder's cost-of-doing-business by paying my ISP more either.3. The executive has completely forgotten that it represents ALL of us, not just its favorites. That includes the copyright czar. If she is involved, she should be representing *we the people*. I don't know how she can "broker a deal" between ISPs and major copyright holders (read: not even all of them...) and do a good job for the rest of us, too. I don't think that's possible.4. This policy affects all of us, but we have no say because it's two multi-corporate interests meeting in secret with the executive branch (see #3 above) to form an agreement which will, in effect, be law.

Why is the executive involved at all? Because just like the copyright holders, it wants to shift the costs of enforcement (which it has taken upon itself, mind you) onto someone else. Hello, ISPs!

Copyright infringement is not a criminal offense UNLESS it's done on a commercial scale. The government should not be involved in policing this illegal activity except when it is investigating commercial copyright infringement via the FBI. The definition of commercial copyright infringement is infringing for the purposes of personal gain, typically in a monetary fashion.

Therefore, the government should not be involved in individual copyright infringement at any level outside the judiciary, where civil m

The problem is, once you open up copyright infringement to the planet on the Internet, it is always on a "commercial" scale. We stopped talking about friends swapping floppies 20 years ago. Now you post something on the Internet and everyone on the planet gets to take advantage of it.

Now, if the objective is to destroy the revenue model for any and all digital goods it is working fine. When I can grab a book, movie, music or software for free because "I want it" without any worries about getting tracked

No sarcasm intended, but why is it a big deal when the US government is working with the two entities most closely related to the issue of US laws being violated?

That's like asking why the National Labor Relations Board is stacked with former union heads and works so closely with those unions. The other side, whether it be consumers or employers -- and even employees themselves -- have no seat at the table. Tell me now that's fair representation?

This is circular logic. If you are the one responsible for creating the laws, are you then allowed to justify arresting people for breaking them "because it's illegal"? You are assuming a fairness which does not exist.

I'm not sure what this "groupthink" is you're speaking of, but that's a topic for another day.

I suppose the issue many have is that the "laws" you speak of, in a system putatively set up "of the people, by the people and for the people" do not seem to represent the interests of "the people". The OP describes a scenario in which "the people" aren't involved in the defining of the policies and laws that affect them, thus the resulting policies and laws are rather one-sided and tend to benefit a small group a

Even someone that is pro-copyright could object to these laws/decisions. From shutting off peoples' internet connections because they are accused of copyright infringement to things such as this (and lobbying).

I'm sorry, but I simply don't see the potential loss of potential profit as that big of a deal. Certainly not big enough of a deal that I'd suggest legislation would could harm innocents.

When this guy was appointed, was there any doubt in anyone's mind that his SOLE responsibility would be to act as a shill for the big media industry? It's not like anyone believed for a second that he was EVER going to represent consumer interests or the rights of the general citizenry.

Sadly, that doesn't make him any different than the Congress or President. Hell, even the Supreme Court is ruling [nytimes.com] that corporations have a *right* to bribe as many public officials as they like. If you want to find someone representing the unwashed-masses-without-lobbyists, you'll have to turn to the EFF. The U.S. government is just a corporate subsidiary now.

Thank you for that enlightening post! I would also point to the fact that Americans have a lot more circus than just TV, though. Many in the middle class can afford nice cars, homes, running water, electricity, cable TV and Internet, smart phones that have higher monthly costs than water and phone combined, and we still manage to spend significant chunks of money on eating out and other entertainment. Sure, I make 1/1000th of what the CEO's that are getting the huge bonuses are getting, but on the other

"[The government] was not a signatory to the historic accord, which isn’t an actual government policy"

I know it's fun to bitch and moan, but try to at least read the whole summary first. A couple government officials who are involved in copyright were kept in the loop regarding private deals between the media companies and ISPs. We have no idea what their role really was. But Wired has an email in which an administration official says [correcting her horrific AOL-style spelling]:

Like, who the hell is Soghoian? That'd be something to establish in your blurb.

"According to emails obtained via a Freedom of Information request....Soghoian said when asked why he sought the documents."
Just a shot in the dark, but I'm going to guess he's the one who sought the documents. Could be wrong though...

Their page is being troublesome, can anyone view the actual emails and post the juicy bits? From the article it seems like the copyright czar is working with people concerned (and being dicks about) copyright. No real surprise there. So there has to be more.

I long suspected the Obama Administration was the one behind the recent agreement between ISPs and the content industry. I'm sure ISPs would prefer to decide on their own which users it is best to keep and which it is best to drop, so the fact ISPs reached any kind of deal with the content industry was a puzzle with a missing piece. It turns out that missing piece was the US Copyright Czar.

I suspect the same thing about recent efforts to shut down domain names: You have Congress pushing for PROTECT IP, DHS shutting down allegedly infringing domains without a trial, and Verizon out of the blue and for no apparent reason deciding to incorporate policies similar to those of PROTECT IP which would better allow DHS to shut down domains it considers infringing. That is the sort of thing that suggests a coordinated effort rather than mere coincidence.

Because it's just a bullshit Republican talking point? The so-called "Czars" are just nicknames for positions with long, tongue-tying titles. We've been using the term since the days of Nixon. It's only when the GOP decided they sooner burn down the country than let someone else lead it that they decided to start a fuss about the nicknames.

Because it's just a bullshit Republican talking point? The so-called "Czars" are just nicknames for positions with long, tongue-tying titles. We've been using the term since the days of Nixon. It's only when the GOP decided they sooner burn down the country than let someone else lead it that they decided to start a fuss about the nicknames.

Not true at all. These unelected, unconfirmed, czars are being given unconstitutional powers never seen in any previous administration either Republican or Democratic.

Bullshit. A czar by definition has no budget, which means he/she has no power. The only thing they can do is hold meetings, and move information around. That alone can be a lot of power - but it certainly isn't unconstitutional to have meetings.

"We will achieve our goal of making this administration the most open and transparent administration in history"... "Americans have a right to know whose voices are being heard in the policymaking process," - President Obama

Joe the moron Biden has been a copyright industry shill since his senate days. He as sponsored all kinds of draconian copyright bills [tinymixtapes.com]with the likes of Berman, Dodd, and Hatch, but Biden is the ring leader. Its disgusting really. Then there is Orin Hatch this moron wanted to install software on our computers to monitor us for copyright infringement and destroy our computers [theregister.co.uk] if the software thought we were infringing.

The problem is that no one cares and copyright is not an election issue so we are all screwed.

Yup. Biden would have been reason enough to vote for someone other than Obama. Problem is, the alternative was - and if we were presented the same choice today - still is FAR worse - I'd rather not have the Right 'finish the job' - looting and destroying the economy of the West, while converting us into a theocratic state, thankyouverymuch.

I think this really tarnishes the dignity of his royal personage. A US Czar should not be personally involved in such shady deals. He should have sent one of his boyars to do it. Or at most a low level copyright Knyaz.

...they just cozy up to different industries. Republicans favor raw materials and insurers,Democrats favor the entertainment and tech industries. They both suck up to big pharma.

It used to be that when a new party came into power, they'd spend a couple of years investigating the corruption in the previous administration before getting deep into the trough themselves. Nowadays the waiting period is over. Corruption is the one thing they DON'T attack each other over, except on the campaign trail.

the cozy back room deal is probably a lot worse for consumers than we realize.

I'm 70, and there was a time in my early life when Federal agencies upheld their mandate to protect the consumer from greedy or corrupt corporations. Now, the Feds protect the greedy, corrupt corporations from the wrath of of the consumers whom the corporations abused.

Well you can continue to slack off. So the rest of us can get your job.Hard work is part of the path that leads to wealth. But there isn't one simple rule for wealth. Hard Work is part of it, and an important part.

It's become quite clear int he last few decades that privilege has much more to do with wealth than hard work. Hard work may secure you a living on the upper end of the middle class. A class that is rapidly getting less and less of the pie due to the actions of the privileged.

Hard work gets you a job with absolutely no security. Hard work gets you raises, which makes you a target for downsize because you make too much.

Privilege gets you a job running a few companies in to the ground, then later on a governorship and a two term presidency.

Well you can continue to slack off. So the rest of us can get your job.
Hard work is part of the path that leads to wealth. But there isn't one simple rule for wealth. Hard Work is part of it, and an important part.

Typical bought-dog. Some people work hard and some people work smart. The smartest work the hardest in the smartest fashion possible.

Its the political system to be rotten. Whoever you elect won't make a damn difference, not with the current system in place.Want to change things ?Make it illegal for corporations to "donate" money to political parties.Make it illegal for campaign contributions.Define a mechanism whereby political parties are financed by public money (fixed amount of money, so no more campaigns that cost billions of $).Make it so that political parties all have equal visibility on public tv.Strip the whole "personhood" thin

Are you insane? How do you propose to look out for yourself against the whims of corporations if not through the government? If some banker decides to just straight up take all of your retirement savings for himself, what are you gonna do? If your insurance company decides that, after years of collecting premiums, they don't feel like paying out benefits when you're in trouble, what are you gonna do?

The Merciful God of the Market is a lie. Market forces won't stop $MEGACORP from screwing you over. You need to band together with your neighbors to defend yourself. And when you do, that is called "government".

Sadly, the government hasn't done anything to stop any abuses of late.

There are only a few ways to deal with the problem if you are made into a victim:

- You can decide to be a victim and hope someone else fixes things for you.- You can get a rifle and stop being a victim.

There are no other alternatives available today. The government is not going to tell an insurance company they have to cover you. They may create a rule that says in order for the insurance company to not cover you they must do A, B and C

Except that if you try option B you'll more than likely be stopped before you can actually off any of the big cheats and whether or not succeed do the best thing you can hope for is to die in a hail of gunfire when the police come to get you (or to just swallow the barrel of your own gun) 'cause if they get hold of you you're about to get stuffed into an overcrowded prison where the guards will beat your ass and your cellmate bubba will make you his new lady...

It should be noted, artor3, that our Federal Government is primarily responsible for creating a rift of favoritism between large corporations and small/medium businesses. "We The People" in government are constantly being bought off. Let me rephrase that for you. Our own citizens (politicians) are the one stabbing us in the collective back. What amazes me how so many people get all revved up over the rift between the rich and poor. Sure, the problem exists. At least more so than in the past 40 years. But th

Only 63% of House Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 while 80% of House Republicans voted for it. In the Senate things werent much better for the Democrats, as only 69% voted for the Civil Rights Act while 82% of Republicans voted for it.

Did your liberal brainwashing in school forget to tell you that it was the Democrats that tied up the floors for 83 days in a record-setting filibuster attempting to stop the Civil Rights Act?

How many of those Democrats stayed with the party after the passage of the civil rights act? Look at the electoral map of the 1960 election. The entire west coast went for Nixon. Georgia, Texas, and the Carolinas went for Kennedy. By 1968 many of the states that had been solidly Democratic had turned on that party because of that vote. In fact the "Solid South" wasn't part of the Democratic party because of some deep liberalism, but rather anger over reconstruction. Once those sneaky liberals actually push

Those Democrats who tried to block the Civil Rights Act were the Dixiecrats, the same Southern traders in bigotry and ignorance that pollute politics to this day. They became Republicans after the CRA fight.

Brainwashing has also misinformed you that a significant number of CRA-opposition in the Democrat party joined the Republican party. Byrd, Gore (Senior), Fulbright.. the leaders of the Democrat filibuster of the CRA, did not join the Republican party after the CRA was passed, and in fact they never joined the Republican party.

You are speaking from the perspective of revisionists that want you to believe something that isnt true. In the 60's the claims that the Republicans were the racists were laughed at